briggs lips off even more

[swamp dog 0]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6562918

 

"I am now prepared to sit out the year if the Bears don't trade me or release me," Briggs told FOXSports.com via cell phone Monday. "I've played my last snap for them. I'll never play another down for Chicago again."

 

 

yeah, i suppose one could continue to hold to the premise that all's fair in contract negotiations and this is just negotiations rhetoric...but he seems rather direct and emphatic about it.

[t.j 35]

Fock him, he's an assclown.

[CurleyQ 0]

I dare him to sit out the entire year!

[nobody 2,038]

Is "lip off" a Detroit thing?

[Phurfur 70]

Isn't he slated to make $7 -$8 million next year?

[CurleyQ 0]

I don't know what the Bears will do, but I hope Angelo does not cave to Rosenhaus who is orchestrating the whole thing. If he decides to sit, then let him sit and tag him again the next year. Briggs is hurting his market value for the Bears if they were to trade him, so I would throw it back at him.

 

I guess that is why I am not a football GM.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Tough situation for the Bears. I think they've got to call Briggs' bluff. Obviously he is pissed, and I think he means what he says. But at the end of the day, is he going to pass up $8 million dollars for this season out of spite?

[kutulu 1,545]

Tough situation for the Bears. I think they've got to call Briggs' bluff. Obviously he is pissed, and I think he means what he says. But at the end of the day, is he going to pass up $8 million dollars for this season out of spite?

 

I think they do play hard ball with Briggs...lot of mock drafts have 4-5 players at his position going in the second half of the first round. I thinks Lance is painting himself into a corner.

[swamp dog 0]

Is "lip off" a Detroit thing?

 

we use the phrase here in michigan all the time

[Hurricane Ditka 0]

Briggs is a liar and I hope the Bears stick it to him.

 

There is NO way he sits out passing up over $7 million dollars. Because if he did sit out a whole season, he gets no money and will get a smaller contract from whoever the next season. Hurting his own market value.

 

He just played in the Super Bowl, plays on a top 5 defense, has Urlacher in the middle drawing attention and is would be paid in near the top of the league for his position.

 

Not too mention IF the Bears put together a long term deal he can't resist I am sure Briggs will say, "I wanted to stay in Chicago all along".

[swamp dog 0]

Briggs is a liar and I hope the Bears stick it to him.

 

There is NO way he sits out passing up over $7 million dollars. Because if he did sit out a whole season, he gets no money and will get a smaller contract from whoever the next season. Hurting his own market value.

 

He just played in the Super Bowl, plays on a top 5 defense, has Urlacher in the middle drawing attention and is would be paid in near the top of the league for his position.

 

Not too mention IF the Bears put together a long term deal he can't resist I am sure Briggs will say, "I wanted to stay in Chicago all along".

 

do the bears want him after saying this stuff? he says in the article he wants what urlacher has--to have the money, to be "the guy." not coming across as the team player lovie likes. and with the slew of bear players coming into free agency next year, the bears can't afford briggs shenanigans--literally and figuratively.

 

they know they're not dealing with briggs in a vaccuum, but have at least 4 other key bear players watching how this goes down because their turn is next year.

 

i predict a trade. not sure of the time table. if the bears get past draft day and briggs is still a bear, it could drag well into the season ala joey galloway a few years ago.

 

i see both sides to a certain extent. the bears did what they had to do to retain his rights and buy some time--tag him; briggs is doing whatever he can to gain some long-term security.

[Hurricane Ditka 0]

do the bears want him after saying this stuff? he says in the article he wants what urlacher has--to have the money, to be "the guy." not coming across as the team player lovie likes. and with the slew of bear players coming into free agency next year, the bears can't afford briggs shenanigans--literally and figuratively.

 

they know they're not dealing with briggs in a vaccuum, but have at least 4 other key bear players watching how this goes down because their turn is next year.

True, but he has all but wrecked his value by mouthing off. And Bears can't afford to give him away, I say he plays for one year at a high salary. He won't sit out,, and he knows it. I think the Bears only want him for one more year.

[CrazyStanley 0]

do the bears want him after saying this stuff? he says in the article he wants what urlacher has--to have the money, to be "the guy." not coming across as the team player lovie likes. and with the slew of bear players coming into free agency next year, the bears can't afford briggs shenanigans--literally and figuratively.

 

they know they're not dealing with briggs in a vaccuum, but have at least 4 other key bear players watching how this goes down because their turn is next year.

 

i predict a trade. not sure of the time table. if the bears get past draft day and briggs is still a bear, it could drag well into the season ala joey galloway a few years ago.

 

i see both sides to a certain extent. the bears did what they had to do to retain his rights and buy some time--tag him; briggs is doing whatever he can to gain some long-term security.

 

 

True, but this all goes back to the Players Assoc. who voted for the "Franchise Tag" and now they are all upset every time it is used. If they didnt like it, dont vote for it but since they did, deal with it, 7-8 mil a year is nothing to sneeze at, heck, being a 5-9, 170 lb. teacher that would work for me. Most of us wont make that in our lifetime. i dygress (Sp), but i know some people say that the franchise tag wasnt supposed to work the way it has played out and i say they better look at all the loop holes before the sign the PA contract next time.

Dont whine to me about 7-8 mil for playing a kids game half the year, buck up!

[MDC 5,890]

Eagles will take him!

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

I see a Javon Walker situation coming up. He sits for a long offseason spouting off how he will never play another down for this team. He is then forced to come back in at some point and gets hurt.

 

Next year, another team takes a chance on him and pays him big.

[Walter34 3]

Fock him. He's whining like a spoiled brat. For the money he is looking for, I dont think he is in their long term plans. Hurts the short term talent level of the team, but I would rather they stick to their guns here.

[DrJ 0]

I'm on the whole "Fock Briggs, suck it up and play for 7 million you baby" bandwagon myself.

 

But I do have to note how it's ironic that the majority take this sort of attitude with players, who risk their career every time they step on the field, and then at the same time cry bloody murder when the team actually negotiates with it's coach rather than caving to his every demand.

[dominus florenzus 0]

looks like the bears are just falling apart. can anyone else see a week 8 where they're 3-5, with benson out for the season, and grossman making eli look like his brother? I can see it.

[Bishop82 61]

Fock him. He's whining like a spoiled brat. For the money he is looking for, I dont think he is in their long term plans. Hurts the short term talent level of the team, but I would rather they stick to their guns here.

 

I concur, I hope he holds out. It would be great if Briggs decides to play when the season starts and then the Bears won't let him. No Cash money for Briggs.

 

I don't see it happening though...

[Let Da Big Dog Eat 37]

I see a Javon Walker situation coming up. He sits for a long offseason spouting off how he will never play another down for this team. He is then forced to come back in at some point and gets hurt.

 

Next year, another team takes a chance on him and pays him big.

 

This is just another typical JW/TO/Rosybutts situation. Look up any thread on it. All the same rhetoric from all the geeks. Old, old story. This storyline is so old with Rosybutts it needs Viagra. And, always the same ending, trade, incentive laden contract for disgruntled player. They never learn.

[My_Dixie_Normus 0]

looks like the bears are just falling apart. can anyone else see a week 8 where they're 3-5, with benson out for the season, and grossman making eli look like his brother? I can see it.

 

They play the Packers, Vikings and Lions twice. They have 19 of the 22 starters already coming back. (Ian Scott was a fill in for Tommie Harris.) The schedule is tougher this year but I would think 10-6 with or without Briggs is reasonable.

 

This is the part of the article I like.

 

"People think I can't afford to sit out the year, I can take out loans to get me through that year just fine because eventually I'll have a deal somewhere," he said. "There are things I can do to make sure I'm fine financially if I sit out."

 

Go get your loans, Lance. Miss your OTAs. Skip training camp. Sit out the season. But while you prepare yourself for a long winter in front of the tube, remember these two names.

 

Todd Bell and Al Harris.

 

These two guys are the last free agents to test the will of Ginny McCaskey. They both sat out an entire year. Eventually, they moved on to other teams and led unspectacular careers barely worth noting. The only significant footnote to their bio was that they sat out the Bears legendary 1985 Superbowl Season. They were replaced by Wilbur Marshall and Dave Duerson. Duerson was voted to the pro-bowl that year and Marshall should have been. Marshall scored a TD on a fumble recovery against the Rams in the NFC Championship Game. Marshall was paid $250,000 and Duerson was paid $125,000 for the season.

 

Todd Bell played one more season with the Bears but struggled with a hamstring injury and eventually signed a FA contract with the Eagles. In 1989, while playing the Bears oddly enough on a Monday night , he broke his leg ending his career. He died at the age of 47 of a heart attack.

[kristv 0]

It's funny how Briggs' comments are EXACTLY the same as Walker's comments previously with the Packers. Rosenhouse must have some sort of 'comment coaching' school or something.

 

Rosenhouse is such a loser and he makes a lot of his clients look like @sses by telling them to say this stuff. Surely, if the Bears were considering trying to work something out for Briggs (eventually), he's burned any bridges that remained by saying this stuff.

[Scandanavian Hearthrob 0]

[quote

"People think I can't afford to sit out the year, I can take out loans to get me through that year just fine because eventually I'll have a deal somewhere," he said. "There are things I can do to make sure I'm fine financially if I sit out."

 

Way to admit you are living above your means. That should really help you at the bargaining table. I know that he wasn't making top dollar but, when will these guys learn that the man with the cash rules the world.

[bigtuna 0]

Briggs is a liar and I hope the Bears stick it to him.

 

There is NO way he sits out passing up over $7 million dollars. Because if he did sit out a whole season, he gets no money and will get a smaller contract from whoever the next season. Hurting his own market value.

 

He just played in the Super Bowl, plays on a top 5 defense, has Urlacher in the middle drawing attention and is would be paid in near the top of the league for his position.

 

Not too mention IF the Bears put together a long term deal he can't resist I am sure Briggs will say, "I wanted to stay in Chicago all along".

 

He might be their best player, so they can't "stick it to him" . Chicago (Angelo) has a history of acrimonious relationships and i guess this is now another one he has soured. Briggs has some leverage, since the Bears need him. They would be best to sign him long term, but that appears by the boards. They ccan trade him but at this juncture the best they can get is a 3rd round pick for him IMO.

 

This will force the Bears to go inot the draft looking for a LB...and they have other holes to fill...like QB.

[swamp dog 0]

looks like the bears are just falling apart. can anyone else see a week 8 where they're 3-5, with benson out for the season, and grossman making eli look like his brother? I can see it.

 

if they played in any other division other than the nfcn, i could see it. but that division is still pretty easy pickings for the bears.

 

He might be their best player, so they can't "stick it to him" . Chicago (Angelo) has a history of acrimonious relationships and i guess this is now another one he has soured. Briggs has some leverage, since the Bears need him. They would be best to sign him long term, but that appears by the boards. They ccan trade him but at this juncture the best they can get is a 3rd round pick for him IMO.

 

This will force the Bears to go inot the draft looking for a LB...and they have other holes to fill...like QB.

 

they have both starting cbs up for contract after next season (among others), and after watching what clements just got i'm sure they're licking their chops. i'm not so sure the bears can afford to do a long-term contract with briggs. something has to give--either with briggs or with their free agents next year.

 

on a practical level, i think briggs replacement can be had with one of their first two picks in the draft. should be good value at olb at either of those spots.

 

It's funny how Briggs' comments are EXACTLY the same as Walker's comments previously with the Packers. Rosenhouse must have some sort of 'comment coaching' school or something.

 

Rosenhouse is such a loser and he makes a lot of his clients look like @sses by telling them to say this stuff. Surely, if the Bears were considering trying to work something out for Briggs (eventually), he's burned any bridges that remained by saying this stuff.

 

but my fav rosenhaus comment was the other day when he said--even though he hadn't talked to 49ers management yet--that a contract extension for gore "must be imminent," even though gore just completed year 2 of a 5-year deal

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

Fock him. He's whining like a spoiled brat. For the money he is looking for, I dont think he is in their long term plans. Hurts the short term talent level of the team, but I would rather they stick to their guns here.

 

As a Packer fan who read everything that Bear's fans had to say in the Javon Walker situation.....this makes me laugh.

 

 

 

Briggs is one of the top LB in the league, shouldn't you pay him? Just pay the guy you cheap a$$es!

 

[TD Ryan2 314]

I'm on the whole "Fock Briggs, suck it up and play for 7 million you baby" bandwagon myself.

 

But I do have to note how it's ironic that the majority take this sort of attitude with players, who risk their career every time they step on the field

 

 

it's always the issue of "long term security"... but really, how many millions does Briggs need to consider himself as having "long term security"?

 

If Briggs gets hurt while playing under the franchise tag, he still gets paid that $7mil, right?

and $7mil, for one season, for a player of his caliber is "market value", right?

 

and (again, correct me if I'm wrong) if Briggs does sit out, he doesn't get paid? and if he sits out until week 10 or later, this entire season doesn't "count" as a year of service and CHI can just keep slapping the franchise tag on him?

 

I guess I'd like to see CHI set the precedent and just tell the guy, "fine, you can sit and not get paid... and then we can do it again next year, and the year after, and the year after... "

 

Understandably, this isn't an ideal situation for either the player or the team, but what irks me the most about it is that Briggs HAS landed a significant pay day.

Unlike Deion Branch* (last year) who was still under contract (for peanuts) and wanted a bump in pay (before he played and got injured and never got a chance at a pay day), Briggs has $7mil! And then he's a FA again next year.

 

 

 

*just for the record, Branch deserved a raise, just not as much as he was asking for.

[kristv 0]

 

but my fav rosenhaus comment was the other day when he said--even though he hadn't talked to 49ers management yet--that a contract extension for gore "must be imminent," even though gore just completed year 2 of a 5-year deal

 

 

Hehe...exactly! Sounds like yet another Javon Walker situation there. What is it with players signing contracts and deciding half way through it that they deserve more (especially after only one good season)? These guys would get their d@mned payday if they would just shut their yaps and get on with it!

[lickin_starfish 1,480]

I wouldn't play for 7 million.

 

How a playa spose to feed his keeids?

[Sho Nuff 719]

I'm on the whole "Fock Briggs, suck it up and play for 7 million you baby" bandwagon myself.

 

But I do have to note how it's ironic that the majority take this sort of attitude with players, who risk their career every time they step on the field, and then at the same time cry bloody murder when the team actually negotiates with it's coach rather than caving to his every demand.

 

Yeah...cause that is what people talked about with Lovie.

It was not about just negotiating...it was about a team notorious for being cheap lowballing a coach the caliber of Smith who had just taken the team to the Super Bowl.

 

and hey, im in the fock him camp as well...

 

It's funny how Briggs' comments are EXACTLY the same as Walker's comments previously with the Packers. Rosenhouse must have some sort of 'comment coaching' school or something.

 

Rosenhouse is such a loser and he makes a lot of his clients look like @sses by telling them to say this stuff. Surely, if the Bears were considering trying to work something out for Briggs (eventually), he's burned any bridges that remained by saying this stuff.

 

Walker's comments like that came after he got rid of Rosenhaus.

 

Though he is an ass...

[DrJ 0]

Yeah...cause that is what people talked about with Lovie.

It was not about just negotiating...it was about a team notorious for being cheap lowballing a coach the caliber of Smith who had just taken the team to the Super Bowl.

 

and hey, im in the fock him camp as well...

 

Plenty of people were suggesting that the Bears were obligated to offer Lovie Smith a long term deal and give him a pay raise while he still had a year left on his current contract.

 

Yet no one cried while Lance Briggs took the field and risked his career, and in some extreme cases his life, for less than $1 million last season. Yes, $7 million is a lot, but one play and his life could be done. Literally. I could see why someone might want a little long term security.

 

People here are suggesting they should "stick it to him" and tag him year after year even if he holds out for the season. Just seems like quite a different attitude when a player wants what he is essentially due than whan a coach does.

 

I say they stick it to him too, because that's what's best for the team and they are entitled to under the CBA. I'm not going to fool myself into believing that it's entirely fair to the player though. I seriously doubt Lance Briggs' opinion on the matter was given much consideration when it was signed, and I doubt he personally signed it. So to say "this is what the CBA says, you should love it Lance! Go dip some fries in grease all day like I do for a living if you don't like it!!" is kind of a bit unfair to the guy...and quite a bit different than the attitude the majority takes when a coach wants himself a raise and long term security.

 

Walker's comments like that came after he got rid of Rosenhaus.

 

Though he is an ass...

 

Walker wasn't exactly playing nice either when he was Drew's client. He got meaner after he fired Drew, because he felt completely betrayed by the QB and organization, but he wasn't peachy before that happened either. Maybe Grossman should tell Lance to stop being such a baby to smooth things over, I hear teammates calling each other out in the media usually helps quite a bit in these situations.

[TD Ryan2 314]

 

People here are suggesting they should "stick it to him" and tag him year after year even if he holds out for the season. Just seems like quite a different attitude when a player wants what he is essentially due than whan a coach does.

 

I'm not sure why Lovie's situation and Brigg's situation can't be discussed independantly of each other.

 

DrJ, you use the words "a player wants what he is essentially worth"... $7mil per year IS what he is essentially worth! That's the number... that's the market. I understand that it isn't his ideal situation (10 or 15 mil guaranteed with a 4 year contract), but it isn't like the guy is being asked to play and risk injury for league minimum or a measley 1 or 2mil.

 

And really, I believe it's a mistake to think that Briggs should be treated/paid differently today because of what he did yesterday (or last year). While it would be nice if teams could operate that way, the parity and competetiveness of the league doesn't allow for that kind of sentimentality.

 

I would have had more understanding if Briggs held out LAST year when he was playing and risking his career for peanuts. Last year was when all the risk was there for him (I don't know what his salary was, but I don't believe it was any big pay day). Fortunately for Briggs, he got thru that period unscathed... and now he's gonna' get $7mil and another shot at free agency after one year.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Plenty of people were suggesting that the Bears were obligated to offer Lovie Smith a long term deal and give him a pay raise while he still had a year left on his current contract.

 

Yet no one cried while Lance Briggs took the field and risked his career, and in some extreme cases his life, for less than $1 million last season. Yes, $7 million is a lot, but one play and his life could be done. Literally. I could see why someone might want a little long term security.

 

People here are suggesting they should "stick it to him" and tag him year after year even if he holds out for the season. Just seems like quite a different attitude when a player wants what he is essentially due than whan a coach does.

 

I say they stick it to him too, because that's what's best for the team and they are entitled to under the CBA. I'm not going to fool myself into believing that it's entirely fair to the player though. I seriously doubt Lance Briggs' opinion on the matter was given much consideration when it was signed, and I doubt he personally signed it. So to say "this is what the CBA says, you should love it Lance! Go dip some fries in grease all day like I do for a living if you don't like it!!" is kind of a bit unfair to the guy...and quite a bit different than the attitude the majority takes when a coach wants himself a raise and long term security.

Walker wasn't exactly playing nice either when he was Drew's client. He got meaner after he fired Drew, because he felt completely betrayed by the QB and organization, but he wasn't peachy before that happened either. Maybe Grossman should tell Lance to stop being such a baby to smooth things over, I hear teammates calling each other out in the media usually helps quite a bit in these situations.

 

I just see player vs. coach negotiations as a much different beast. With the coaches, you have no cap to worry about.

 

As for Walker, I agree he was bad with Drew as well, and was not trying to imply otherwise...just that his comment about never wanting to play for Green Bay again came after Drew was out of the picture.

 

He felt disrespected by the organization for sure.

As for Rex speaking out? Maybe if he has earned the right to do so...though with Briggs being a defensive player it would be kind of foolish too. Though, his defense is his best weapon.

Favre was the leader of the team, and had every right to speak out to an extent on Walker...it was his business trying to get his #1 WR into camp and showing up. Where he went too far was saying that he hoped the team did not cave in to Walker...and I have disagreed with that since day one.

 

Now, if Urlacher spoke out, it would carry a bit more weight and make more sense....

[DrJ 0]

I'm not sure why Lovie's situation and Brigg's situation can't be discussed independantly of each other.

 

DrJ, you use the words "a player wants what he is essentially worth"... $7mil per year IS what he is essentially worth! That's the number... that's the market. I understand that it isn't his ideal situation (10 or 15 mil guaranteed with a 4 year contract), but it isn't like the guy is being asked to play and risk injury for league minimum or a measley 1 or 2mil.

 

And really, I believe it's a mistake to think that Briggs should be treated/paid differently today because of what he did yesterday (or last year). While it would be nice if teams could operate that way, the parity and competetiveness of the league doesn't allow for that kind of sentimentality.

 

I would have had more understanding if Briggs held out LAST year when he was playing and risking his career for peanuts. Last year was when all the risk was there for him (I don't know what his salary was, but I don't believe it was any big pay day). Fortunately for Briggs, he got thru that period unscathed... and now he's gonna' get $7mil and another shot at free agency after one year.

 

Not saying they can't, I'm just pointing out how ironic the differences are. If you don't feel that's worthy of discussion or has any bearing to this discussion, you're welcome to not respond to the comment.

 

And no, $7 million is not the same as a Nate Clements mega deal. That is what Lance deserves, and the fact that he isn't even allowed to pursue it isn't fair to the guy.

 

He did hold out of the minicamps last season and even the first few days of training camp, but then showed up and did his job. He was attempting to negotiate a long term deal with the Bears the entire time and did so in good faith, they just haven't been able to agree on a figure. Since it is obvious at this point that there isn't going to be a figure that they can agree on, he'd like to see if he can get it elsewhere. I think every single one of us would want the same thing if we were in his situation. Just because it's unfair to the tune of 7.2 million doesn't exactly make it fair - it makes it better than if it were to the tune of $2 million.

 

I do agree that being a big baby about it isn't helpful, and isn't going to change much. And I am fine with them not being fair to him - I do understand the point and value of the tag. But stop making this guy out to be some sort of villain because he wants some long term security in a job that could kill him tomorrow.

[BSune52 0]

Plenty of people were suggesting that the Bears were obligated to offer Lovie Smith a long term deal and give him a pay raise while he still had a year left on his current contract.

 

Yet no one cried while Lance Briggs took the field and risked his career, and in some extreme cases his life, for less than $1 million last season. Yes, $7 million is a lot, but one play and his life could be done. Literally. I could see why someone might want a little long term security.

 

People here are suggesting they should "stick it to him" and tag him year after year even if he holds out for the season. Just seems like quite a different attitude when a player wants what he is essentially due than whan a coach does.

 

I say they stick it to him too, because that's what's best for the team and they are entitled to under the CBA. I'm not going to fool myself into believing that it's entirely fair to the player though. I seriously doubt Lance Briggs' opinion on the matter was given much consideration when it was signed, and I doubt he personally signed it. So to say "this is what the CBA says, you should love it Lance! Go dip some fries in grease all day like I do for a living if you don't like it!!" is kind of a bit unfair to the guy...and quite a bit different than the attitude the majority takes when a coach wants himself a raise and long term security.

Walker wasn't exactly playing nice either when he was Drew's client. He got meaner after he fired Drew, because he felt completely betrayed by the QB and organization, but he wasn't peachy before that happened either. Maybe Grossman should tell Lance to stop being such a baby to smooth things over, I hear teammates calling each other out in the media usually helps quite a bit in these situations.

 

 

Look at it this way. Yes he may risk his career or even under extreme circumstances risk his life (even though you're way off base with that comment, but since you said it we'll run with it) while playing the GAME of football. How about the Chicago Police? Chicago Fire? How about the Military in Iraq? These are people who are truthfully risking their life and what are they getting paid? Definitley not 7 million/year, or for that matter for the majority of their career. This is ridiculous for Briggs to think he's deserving of more than what the Bears gave him when they tagged him. A 6 million dollar raise for doing a good job playing a game. He and any other player that assumes they're worth that kind of money can get bent. Considering the average raise to a "normal person's" salary is in the 2-3%/year, Briggs/Walker/TO and any other player who thinks they deserve this need to get a job where they actually have to manage their income/expenses and not live that glamourous life. He is getting paid the average of the top players at his position in the game, how is this a problem again? Oh and long term security?!?! Tell you what give me 7 million for a years worth of work and see how well that is put into long term security..haha, this kind of crap makes me sick.

 

The other thing about this situation is that he feels the Bears disrespected him, how by giving him that massive raise? How about the fact that respect is earned not given. Given he is a good linebacker but he's not the best in the league or even the team for that matter. Did he get the bears to the SB squarley on his shoulders? NO. Lovie got the extension because he was and is integral to the Bears overall success now and in the future. Oh wait thats right Briggs got a raise as well. There needs to be a stop put to this kind of nonsense in professional sports.

[TD Ryan2 314]

That is what Lance deserves

 

I guess that's where we just disagree bro.

I have a problem with "deserves"... the notion of entitlement behind that just bothers me.

 

IMO, Lance "deserves" whatever the market pays him within the rules of their current CBA... and that's $7mil per season.

 

And Sho Nuff nailed it in his above post... the coach vs. player contracts can't (in my mind) be discussed evenly because there are no salary cap implications with a coach's salary.

 

Whatever and however you deal/negotiate with Briggs will affect what and how you can deal/negotiate with the rest of your roster.

[DrJ 0]

Look at it this way. Yes he may risk his career or even under extreme circumstances risk his life (even though you're way off base with that comment, but since you said it we'll run with it) while playing the GAME of football. How about the Chicago Police? Chicago Fire? How about the Military in Iraq? These are people who are truthfully risking their life and what are they getting paid? Definitley not 7 million/year, or for that matter for the majority of their career. This is ridiculous for Briggs to think he's deserving of more than what the Bears gave him when they tagged him. A 6 million dollar raise for doing a good job playing a game. He and any other player that assumes they're worth that kind of money can get bent. Considering the average raise to a "normal person's" salary is in the 2-3%/year, Briggs/Walker/TO and any other player who thinks they deserve this need to get a job where they actually have to manage their income/expenses and not live that glamourous life. He is getting paid the average of the top players at his position in the game, how is this a problem again? Oh and long term security?!?! Tell you what give me 7 million for a years worth of work and see how well that is put into long term security..haha, this kind of crap makes me sick.

 

So people have never died in football? People have never been paralyzed or had life crippling injuries in football? He's risking a whole lot more than his career every time he gets on that field, whether you want to believe it or not.

 

I don't care that people don't get $7 million dollars for other jobs that are more important in the grand scheme of things, and take risks as well. If you have a problem with that, don't watch football anymore. Don't buy tickets to the games. Tune in to the World's Best Fireman competition so that they can have some of your hard earned money. You are part of the reason that a 1 year, 7 million salary isn't entirely fair to the guy.

 

lt's simply unfair to him if he could make more elsewhere, have more security elsewhere, and isn't even being given the opportunity to pursue those options. No, it's not the greatest injustice the world or league has ever seen, but it's still not entirely fair to the players that end up getting tagged. And the guy isn't a villain for wanting what he believes he rightly deserves.

[DrJ 0]

I guess that's where we just disagree bro.

I have a problem with "deserves"... the notion of entitlement behind that just bothers me.

 

IMO, Lance "deserves" whatever the market pays him within the rules of their current CBA... and that's $7mil per season.

 

And Sho Nuff nailed it in his above post... the coach vs. player contracts can't (in my mind) be discussed evenly because there are no salary cap implications with a coach's salary.

 

Whatever and however you deal/negotiate with Briggs will affect what and how you can deal/negotiate with the rest of your roster.

 

I don't think the CBA is entirely fair to these tagged players. And I'm sure they didn't weigh Lance's opinion heavily when they negotiated it. So I don't understand how we can say that he has to be thrilled about that portion of the CBA and think it is entirely fair.

 

Yes, these are the terms of his profession. Yes, he has to abide these if he wants to be a football player. It doesn't mean he has to agree with or like all the rules either. Or believe all of them are fair.

 

Whether a coach's salary effects the cap or not, it's less fair for a player to be forced to go out there on a deal that he is unhappy with and is unfair to him, than it is for a coach to have to coach through a deal he is unhappy with and is unfair to him. For the simple reason that that player risks getting seriously messed up when he goes out there.

 

Lovie had one year remaining on his contract, under that contract he "deserved" 1.5 million this season. Yet for some reason people want to band around him as being treated unfairly, and tell players like Lance they are wrong for wanting some long term security.

[BSune52 0]

So people have never died in football? People have never been paralyzed or had life crippling injuries in football? He's risking a whole lot more than his career every time he gets on that field, whether you want to believe it or not.

 

Granted he is taking a risk but that is his chosen line of work. And it's still a game that he is being paid an extremely large amount of cash to play.

 

I don't care that people don't get $7 million dollars for other jobs that are more important in the grand scheme of things, and take risks as well. If you have a problem with that, don't watch football anymore. Don't buy tickets to the games. Tune in to the World's Best Fireman competition so that they can have some of your hard earned money.

 

You are definitley missing every point that has been made on this topic so far. He is being a giant crybaby, he signed a contract that has the Franchise Tag as part of the agreement. If he didn't want to have that possibility he shouldn't have signed it in the first place.

 

 

You are part of the reason that a 1 year, 7 million salary isn't entirely fair to the guy.

 

That is quite possibly the most ignorant thing I have heard anyone say ever in my entire life. Go back to the classroom recess is over and your teacher is calling.

 

lt's simply unfair to him if he could make more elsewhere, have more security elsewhere, and isn't even being given the opportunity to pursue those options. No, it's not the greatest injustice the world or league has ever seen, but it's still not entirely fair to the players that end up getting tagged. And the guy isn't a villain for wanting what he believes he rightly deserves.

 

Again he signed a contract, he plays out this year and he's a FA, it's not difficult to comprehend but you clearly can't grasp the situation. Oh and I never said he's a "villian" just that he got what he rightly deserved at the time when he signed the contract, as soon as that is over he's more than welcome to try to get what he "believes he rightly deserves"

[CurleyQ 0]

I understand DrJ's point, but I disagree that it's "not fair" - what is happening to Lance Briggs. Maybe it is just a matter of semantics. The Bears are complying with the contract with the players union, so it is fair within the rules, imo. As someone brought up in one of these threads, Lance should maybe be pissed at the player's union for agreeing to this years ago.

 

 

Lance and Rosenhaus can complain through the media and wreck his perceived market value. That is their right. I think it is the Bear's right and maybe in their long-term best interests to let Lance sit, if he wants and I think they should tag him again. He can sit again and then he can be a free agent again after forfeiting $14M dollars over two years. If Lance and Drew think that is in their best financial interest, then so be it. I can't stand the McCaskeys, but in this case, I think they are within their rights.

 

Just my $.02.